Would George Zimmerman have left his car if he hadn't been carrying a gun?

Gun control advocates argue that Zimmerman's Kel-Tec PF-9 brought out his inner Dirty Harry, leading to the tragic shooting of a Florida teen. They reckon restricting firearms ownership would prevent this kind of murderous machismo, making both individuals and society safer.

It's an insidious, irrelevant argument that betrays a profound ignorance of the truth about guns.

Whatever you think about Zimmerman's decision to exit his vehicle, there's no question he had the legal right to do so. Also beyond dispute: Zimmerman was motivated by a desire to safeguard his neighborhood.

The legally carried firearm resting on Zimmerman's hip was there to protect life, not project personal power or facilitate a "hate crime." Don't take my word for it. Lest we forget, a Florida jury accepted his lawyers' argument that their client acted in self-defense.

Millions of armed Americans go about their business carrying a firearm for the same reason: to protect themselves against criminal assault. While there are bad apples in every barrel, concealed carry permit holders are as far from trigger happy wannabe cops as Clint Eastwood is from Pee-wee Herman.

Gun control advocates refuse to accept the fact that the vast majority of Americans carrying a firearm — in accordance with local, state and federal laws — are a peaceable lot. They are not criminals. They're anti-criminals.

Gun control advocates are not swayed by statistics. They feel free to exploit the Zimmerman case to project their own fear (of a loss of self-control while armed) onto fellow citizens. Truth be told, armed Americans are not a threat to society. They are our country's front line against crime.

Any law that seeks to delay, deny or restrict Americans' natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms puts us all in greater danger, not less.